The coalition government, keen to avoid being seen in the same light as the database and snooping-obsessed previous Labour administration, has issued a draft code of practice that it claims "introduces a philosophy of surveillance by consent".
But the code won't cover the vast majority of cameras* that are operated privately by …

Re: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

No but there is extensive anecdotal evidence of crimes being observed by CCTV where the responsible authorities refuse to review or release the recorded material in support of the victims of said crime.

Re: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

When some yobbo decided to slash the tyres on a number of cars including mine on a city centre street at 9pm, the CCTV spotted him and his mates and they were being arrested as I returned to the car a few minutes later. So CCTV worked well there.

Not so much the 'Justice System' where he got sentenced to a couple of weeks doing "hard time with TV and burgers". I was told it wan't worth trying to get any recompense for my nearly-new tyres as he would at best be told to pay it back at 20p a week forever and in the process would probably be told my name and address...

And yet...every time I've actually required the use of one, say when I got mugged, or when my bike was stolen and when my car was victim of a hit & run...*none* of the operators had any film in, or they were switched off, or nobody was on duty at the time etc etc.

Re: Cameras everywhere

"Kids don't grow up to be men anymore."

Well, no. Not all kids do. Some of them grow up to be women.

And please - no cross-gender or other potentially offensive (to some undefined and unknown potential reader) mis-interpretations of that comment. It was intended purely to highlight the fact that 'kids' come in two genders, and both genders grow up (where the tribulations of life allow them to survive long enough to do so).

Re: Cameras everywhere

"The coalition government, keen to avoid being seen in the same light as the database and snooping-obsessed previous Labour administration, has issued a draft code of practice that it claims "introduces a philosophy of surveillance by consent"."

Typical Tory ploy which, unfortunately, the plebs will not see through like a pane of glass.

"(I'm not actually English, but I am sick of whining idiots like you. If you hate the place so much, why don't you leave?)"

WOW you though that one out throughly didn't you? "whining idiot" or ENGLISH citizen who expects MORE from the scummy populace. You clearly don't give a shite about England, so maybe we would all be better off if "your sort" followed your own advice?

Re: " If you hate the place so much, why don't you leave?)"

I did. And cameras were a part of that. To misquote Terry Pratchett "The police want everyone indoors with the curtains open and their hands on the table" and the cameras were making the outside feel like that too. Not that I'm especially criminal; but the thought of being watched was a sort of low-grade discomfort all the time and everywhere.

So. A new set of "guidelines"; unenforced and with no sanctions for breaking them. What is the fucking point of that; apart from providing the "overseer" a cushy indoor job with no heavy lifting?

I did

sadly I saw the way the place was heading and got out while the going is good. England is a nice place to visit... but 2 weeks is about all I can take before the frustration kicks in again at what it's become

" ENGLISH citizen"?

There is no such thing as an English citizen, or a Scottish one, a Welsh one or a Northern Irish one.

Why?

None of them are independent nations. Hopefully, this will remain basically the same even though, like many Scots, I am concerned about the unmitigated stupidity of some people who want to break up the UK for their own political gain.

There is not an English Army. There is not a Scottish currency. There is no such thing as a Welsh passport. There are many people who identify as English, Scottish and so on. I do. that is my ethnicity, not my nationality. There are British citizens who are English.I have colleagues who are very British but whose parents came here from other places, They are not English either. They are however the same nationality as me and we are both the better for it.

There is a bright side to living in a police state

You're all missing the point. The guidelines will show how to make more cash out of cameras by selling material to "I am being Framed, Guv'", "Blimey that was rather a nasty axe-wielding incident Officer" or "Bollocks was I doin' a ton in a 30 mate" ... or perhaps even "Big Brother - The Reality Show ..."

Re: If it weren't for cameras....

"At the end of the day, if you're innocent, what's your problem?"

The problem is that innocence depends very much on the vagaries of the day.

One day its mugging a granny, breaking a shop window..... one regime change later its looking Islamic, thinking suspiciously, applying for a school place out of catchment. Oh Ripa already covers the last one - Move it to the top.

Ideal scenario is that every street in the UK has a camera on it

Ideal scenario ... At the end of the day, if you're innocent, what's your problem?

FFS.

For the same reason I won't want cameras in my living room, bedroom, toilet. Not because I'm guilty of anything but that it's none of your f***ing business. Privacy != Secrecy.

In and ideal situation the CCTV cameras would all be outside the police and MP's houses and be viewable by the public who are paying for their services - that's how it generally works, EMPLOYER watching the EMPLOYEE - not the other way around.

Re: Ideal scenario ... At the end of the day, if you're innocent, what's your problem?

Nice realistic example there.

However, when you're walking down the street, guess what? That's a public place, meaning it's the role of the government to protect you.

Now, they can do that in a variety of ways:

1 - Have lots and lots and lots of police officers available to cover every major street, pedestrian precinct, etcetc in the country

Of course, that'll be represented in the massive tax bill that you'd all be getting slapped with for those services, and of course, the quality of the officers will decline as the intake process is required to take 2nd and 3rd choice candidates to fill the slots. (I believe this already happens in England having worked with your cops. Not so much in Scotland..)

2 - Have a wide CCTV coverage monitored from several control rooms which are linked directly into Police networks and will actively alert officers to ongoing crime, which is then co-ordinated through Force Control Centre to dispatch officers, update live time, pass descriptions, and the footage itself which will then be the corroborative evidence.

Happens already, works very, very well in Scotland at least.

What people forget is that there are thousands of victims of crime whereby there would never have been an arrest or detention were it not for positive ID via CCTV, and there certainly wouldn't have been an arrest without the corroborative evidence of CCTV.

Assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, thefts, etc,etc.... Unless two people have seen it happen, you're not going to get an arrest. You need further admissable evidence. That's your CCTV.

Now, they can do that in a variety of ways

You forgot 3:

Turn politician's gaze away from lining their own pockets by sucking up to Big Business and force them to turn their attentions towards providing real opportunities for the have nots by way of long form government instead of the tabloid practice of satisfying the 24 hour news cycle. Whilst lining their own pockets.

The root cause of crime is perceived helplessness in the midst of predicated poverty. Add lack of social mobility, poor, relevant, education, persistent meddling in the education system by ministers with a portfolio but without qualifications or experience and you have the perfect recipe for creating an underclass which feeds the status quo. And the status quo would prefer it that way.

What people (like you) forget is that there are millions of people like us who do not commit crime and do not want, need or deserve to be survived for any purpose. Especially 'just in case'

Re: Now, they can do that in a variety of ways

Re: Ideal scenario ... At the end of the day, if you're innocent, what's your problem?

My comment about the CCTV in the bedroom, etc was deliberately flippant - purely to highlight the stupidity of your last sentence about 'in an ideal world....nothing to hide, nothing to fear' bollocks.

Up to that point you were making sense, and yes I do see the sense in CCTV and accept it can reduce crime - but so does locking everybody up in solitary. The final part of your original comment totally discredits you, and makes me think that you should be the LAST person involved in CCTV. The scary thing is - and you seem to believe it.

Question - would you be in favour of implanting tracking chips into everybody? After all it could/would reduce crime as fake alibis would be harder and you would be able to place people at the scene, etc. Does this make it a good idea in your 'ideal world'?

Re: Question

Re: Question

Thanks AC. I wasn't sure what the definition was. It is strange that cameras in 'public' places are exempt from this based purely on who operates them. Personally I'd be even tougher on private organisations who record the public (or at least as strict).

Re: Question

I think you'll find that bus drivers would refuse to work after 8:00pm if there wasn't a camera on the bus.

Drivers are considered as at-risk lone-workers, their employers have a duty of care to provide security; a camera is a big deterrent to would-be attackers.

People are poor witnesses, they can be intimidated by violence, studies show their recall of faces and events can be extremely poor. A camera is the equivalent of at least four people; if are you going to put a bobby on every street then it needs to be round the clock, so three shifts per day for seven days a week is twenty-one 8 hour shifts and a single person only works five shifts a week (not taking into account holidays).

People caught on camera tend to admit guilt and save the cost of a trial, when it's a witness then it becomes "he said she said" and CPS may not even bother to prosecute.